No, you didn’t. You didn’t understand my question.
You have a sequence of observations such as ((1, 2, 3, 4)). The number of hypotheses that fit this sequence is greater than one. You may discover one but that does not mean it’s the only one. That’s my entire point. You may discover that “The difference between any two adjacent numbers in the sequence is exactly 1” fits the data but it’s not the only hypothesis that does so. In other words, the next number in the sequence might be (5) but it also might be (1).
More important than that is the fact that in order to say anything about the universe you must pick a vantage point. But the number of vantage points to pick from is greater than one. So which one are you going to pick? There are no “true” and “false” vantage points. They are just vantage points. Sure, they might have pros and cons but these have nothing to do with veracity i.e. you can’t say that an advantage of a vantage point is that it’s more true or that its disadvantage is that it’s less true.
You can pick the vantage point of a dichromat to describe the universe. Nothing wrong about it as far as veracity is concerned. In the same exact way, you can pick the vantage point of any clock you want in order to describe the universe. As far as veracity is concerned, nothing wrong about it.
But here you are arguing that some vantage points are truer than others.
That’s . . . nonsense.
You are thinking in a very peculiar linear and basic way and not at all in accordance with several breakthroughs which have happened in the 20th century.
Maybe it is not so peculiar at all and your thinking is just baroque.
But seriously, there is one paradigm we have that responds to our empirical testing and this paradigm has two theories which predict slightly different things on vastly different scales.
The reason for this difference is however the same logic from which the two theories are derived.
the slight discrepancy between the two theories about the one paradigm is result of the truth which gives rise to both of them. Philosophy has been the quest after this truth even before the scientific question arose.
The fundamental principle gives rise to different fundamental laws which differ and apply do different zones, scales, regions of existence.
This is why RM fails, to my own understanding, to predict reality in the moment; it fails to account for the discrepancy between laws that the enforcement of principles necessitates.
“Contextualism” - you should try to gain wisdom with Faust.
No short version, then? Ok…
…it’s not that I’m a lazy thinker, but more that concepts and theories come and go, and many I learnt when young have been rendered useless… with the testing and passing of time, so I prefer to see whether things are worth my while or not… so more a tired thinker, than a lazy one.
A few days back, I near-aced a trial AFs Airman’s cognitive/intelligence test, so not that lazy (or slow) a thinker, after-all… I did a lot better than I thought I would, too. lol
Fixed wrote
Could it be though through a new way of approaching it?
And then after he answers that, he can take it back to the points I raised with him above:
Okay, given something in particular that you have become conscious of today, if not a law, than what? If not God, than what? The distinction I make is between consciousness in the either/or world and consciousness in the is/ought world. Things we’re conscious of that we are able to demonstrate to others and things that we are not – the subjective/subjunctive self rooted in dasein. In what “I” presume to be a No God world
Well, most of us are social beings. Where does “we” end and “I” begin? We were indoctrinated as children to believe certain things. Then, assuming some measure of autonomy, we sustain those beliefs all the way to the grave. Or, given the nature of the modern world, with so many more options, we have a particular sequence of experiences, relationships and access to ideas which predispose us to certain moral, political and religious prejudices. On the other hand, given the existence of contingency, chance and change we are also moving into a future in which new experiences, new relationships and new ideas can reconfigure “I” in any number of directions.
Or, rather, that’s how I have come to view it. All I can then do is to come into places like this and note the reactions of others who do not view their own self like that at all. What are their arguments?
Well, assuming I can take you seriously here, my understanding of it is just another existential contraption rooted in dasein. It is only what seems reasonable to me here and now: someone who believes that their own moral and political values are rooted in the “real me” in sync with the “right thing to do”. And, thus, they come to divide the world into those who are “one of us” [the good guys] and “one of them” [the bad guys]. Rooted in either, God or political ideology or deontology or nature.
Not to worry. Going back to a complete understanding of existence itself, neither do I.
Oh, and just in case this is all just tongue in cheek: 
Or, sure, maybe you would like to take a crack at it. 
“…so more a tired thinker, than a lazy one”.
i.e. this: Ennui is “a feeling of being bored and mentally tired caused by having nothing interesting or exciting to do.” When something takes my interest or catches my eye, my brain lights up like a god damn Christmas tree and goes into overdrive, so I can’t physically ‘switch on’ for all things, but only for ‘some’ things, so discerning… if you will.
Why does this guy think I have any boss, though… he mad? 